Do You Believe in God?

[D_Geffarde Phartsmeller]

To all you people quoting: read what I wrote!!!! I never said it solved problems. I never said it was THE answer to everything. I don't need the answers to everything. It's the most obvious counterpoint to what you believe in. If you think God popped up from nothing, why not the universe? Doesn't get any simpler. I have no idea how everything "started". But I don't believe a God did it. Who the hell cares how it happened right now? So many more important things to be focusing on the world.

"So God existed "before" He created the universe(s) and exists within and beyond them. there is no need for He Himself to be created in that instance since there is no time frame outside of our reality."

Again I can refute by asking if there is no need for He Himself to be created, why is there a need for the universe itself to be created? If there is no need for beginnings or endings, why did a god have to create the universe? Why could it not have just been in existence all on it's own?

"and i'd say in the vast realm of possibility for everything to line up just right, even over billions of years, for intelligent life to evolve to the state we have is fairly miraculous"

Billions of years is plenty of time. You can throw various bacteria under a microscope and watch it evolve in a period of hours. And humans could have evolved into any number of other things based upon the environment it happened in. It's a bad to assume as we currently exist is the best model. Perhaps if there were no dinosaurs, we'd look completely different. Less sun, more sun, no Pangea, a longer period of Pangea. Nothing "lined-up just right". How we arrived here could've happened in so many other ways and different periods of time and resulted in many other possibilities. You think too highly of humans.

 

[JustAsking]

I would say that supernatural is just a staging post until we catch up with it scientifically.

Yes that is a perfectly reasonable approach from the point of view of science. In fact, science would suggest that you not even use the world supernatural. Anything that is not yet understood is not magic, its basically a standing "work order" to a scientist to get to work and find a natural explanation.

Spirituality can exist without godness, it is simply a human faculty.

Yes, I agree with that completely. That we have a capacity for spirituality, and that it might have evolved for a useful purpose says nothing definitive about the existence of God. My claim is only that neither is it incompatible with faith in the existence of God. Evolved spiritualilty is no less miraculous than one that was "poofed" into existence by a God.

To say that an unrolling of knowledge is part of god's plan, isn't really a logical argument :tongue:. I suppose you could also conclude that atheists, agnostics and those who do not accept the premise are also just part of the omniscient plan. This is an act of faith rather than an empirical enquiry into the topic. This is where we can not expect to meet, that is science and god.

Yes, agreed there, too. Science can say nothing about God one way or the other, and theology must defer to science when they are incompatible. Neither of those notions are troublesome to modern theologians.

But here is something to ponder. Science has no way of knowing if it is arriving at any universal truths. Theories can only be evaluated on their ability to make predictions (retroactively or in the future). That scientific theories have astounding powers of prediction, one would think that they must be getting at some kind of truth.

But consider that even the most foundational theories that sustain prediction for a few hundred years are only provisional and will surely be replaced by a better theory at some point. Thomas Kuhn pointed out that theories are often replaced by something revolutionary, rather than something evolutionary.

And so the modern physics of relativity and quantum mechanics completely replaces Newtonian physics with something that bears almost no resemblance to Newton's theories. This being the rule rather than the exception, what does that say about the "truth" component of scientific theories.

Newton's theories were astonishingly powerful to such a degree that we put men on the moon with them. So for sheer utility, they are amazing. But having been replaced with relativity, what can you say about their "truth"? And so on.

My point is that when it comes to universal truth, the crown jewels of empircism, science that is, cannot claim to be anything more than "extremely useful".

"and i'd say in the vast realm of possibility for everything to line up just right, even over billions of years, for intelligent life to evolve to the state we have is fairly miraculous"

Billions of years is plenty of time. You can throw various bacteria under a microscope and watch it evolve in a period of hours. And humans could have evolved into any number of other things based upon the environment it happened in. It's a bad to assume as we currently exist is the best model. Perhaps if there were no dinosaurs, we'd look completely different. Less sun, more sun, no Pangea, a longer period of Pangea. Nothing "lined-up just right". How we arrived here could've happened in so many other ways and different periods of time and resulted in many other possibilities. You think too highly of humans.

Yes, I completely agree with that. The person you were quoting was describing what people call The Anthropic Principle. This states that the universe is so precisely fine tuned to support life that it is incomprehensible that it wasn't deliberately designed this way.

Your answer is excellent. Basically, life is the result of the tuning of this universe, so its not surprising that it matches it so well (or, as you properly point out, "well enough"). If the universe were a little different, we would have life that was a little different or no life at all.

So the Anthropic Principle is a flawed argument for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Not the least because it relies on the use of "false dichotomy", where only A (A = intelligent designer) can be true if B (B = random natural processees) is not true. This doesn't work because it assumes there will never be C, D, E, etc, where these letters represent other natural explanations.

One example of an alternative natural explanation is that whatever process created this universe could perhaps just as easily be creating billions of universes all the time, each with a different random set of parameters. If one or more of those universes happen to be condusive to the formation of life that is self-aware, only those universes would contain self-aware beings that would be pondering The Anthropic Principle. Naturally, this is just idle speculation, but the mere fact that we could come up with it suggests that The Anthropic argument cannot force a simple dichotomy of "if not A then B".

 

[Equus14]

You asked. I don't fucking care if I offend you by answering.

It's when they try to legislate my private life -- that's when I feel like it's being forced upon me. It's the guy who rode up on his bike and started talking to an attractive girl (also on a bike) next to me on the street one Friday night and started asking her if she was comfortable with going to hell because she was following the wrong religion; her otherwise pleasant evening was ruined, so she bailed. It's my aunt, who, after being "born again", shunned my sister when she came out about being bi -- they used to be like best friends. It's the Mormon boys who came up to me & my family on the street and said, "Do you have time to talk about Jesus?" A stern 'No' was our reply (and I'm the only truly agnostic one of the bunch; if they accost me again, I'm stealing their backpacks). It's the bible pounder who stood outside the state fair with a megaphone, telling everyone that they were living in sin -- never mind that he didn't actually know anyone. It's our favorite asshole, "Reverend" Phelps. It's Jerry Falwell, whose crusade invaded the US Government, convincing the public that we're officially a Christian country (WRONG) and turning us into a perpetual joke in the eyes of the world.

Religious people can't keep their fucking mouths shut. It's their mission in life to make everyone else feel like shit. A real bunch of winners, huh, who can't keep their filthy, hypocritical, thieving hands out of my life.

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Equus14]

I don't think science will ever prove or disprove the existence of a God or Gods.

When it comes to invisible beings the nonexistent, the unprovable, and non-disprovable are always very much alike.

 

[Equus14]

"it's not like the two are mutually exclusive. hell, i wasn't "indoctrinated" either. i came to this on my own."


On a theistic basis theists are generally ignorant, fearful, small people who require a god fantasy to make them feel special, and threats from their non-existent god to behave themselves. They don't deserve pity they deserve a psychotherapist to help them deal with their fear of the finality of death, find some real self-esteem that doesn't hinge upon anything external from themselves, and to be deprogrammed from the religious delusions that they have embraced. It doesn't matter if you've come to this on your own. It is an unfortunate leftover from the evolution of our species that it still has a propensity toward delusional thinking. It's a trait that no longer serves its purpose. All evolutionary traits are those things that help a species to survive. Religion was once a primitive form of government with a non-existent god figure as a law giver. However now that we have REAL government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it's no longer useful. In fact it gets in the way. So this trait is one that is currently killing us. We either evolve beyond it or it will destroy us. I'm betting it will be the latter rather than the former.



"what do you mean by "people like you"? and i doubt ALL religions despise you. i've never encountered anyone in a demographic that would piss off a Buddhist, for instance. :biggrin1:"



Religions are control devices. Anyone who is not suseptable to being controlled in that manner is part of the 'out group'. Religions always demonize the 'out group'. I'm the epitome of an 'out group' individual. It can be argued that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion.

 

[Captain Elephant]

I think it's pretty conceited of mankind to think that there is nothing else above him. When a life is ended what happens to that spark that was there? Why can't man create that "spark?"

Healthy agnostocism would be my game, I guess, but for every argument for there's an equal against, and vice versa.

Life's too short to waste on such battles.

 

[Equus14]

On a theistic basis theists are generally ignorant, fearful, small people who require a god fantasy to make them feel special, and threats from their non-existent god to behave themselves. They don't deserve pity they deserve a psychotherapist to help them deal with their fear of the finality of death, find some real self-esteem that doesn't hinge upon anything external from themselves, and to be deprogrammed from the religious delusions that they have embraced. It doesn't matter if you've come to this on your own. It is an unfortunate leftover from the evolution of our species that it still has a propensity toward delusional thinking. It's a trait that no longer serves its purpose. All evolutionary traits are those things that help a species to survive. Religion was once a primitive form of government with a non-existent god figure as a law giver. However now that we have REAL government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it's no longer useful. In fact it gets in the way. So this trait is one that is currently killing us. We either evolve beyond it or it will destroy us. I'm betting it will be the latter rather than the former.


Religions are control devices. Anyone who is not suseptable to being controlled in that manner is part of the 'out group'. Religions always demonize the 'out group'. I'm the epitome of an 'out group' individual. It can be argued that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion.

 

[Equus14]

I think it's pretty conceited of mankind to think that there is nothing else above him. When a life is ended what happens to that spark that was there? Why can't man create that "spark?"

Healthy agnostocism would be my game, I guess, but for every argument for there's an equal against, and vice versa.

Life's too short to waste on such battles.

Which is more conceited? For mankind to think there is nothing else above him or to think that in all the vastness of the universe there is an all knowing all powerful god who is very interested in You personally, your petty supplications, and is intensely interested in what you do with your reproductive organs.

Personally I wouldn't say that there is nothing above humanity. I would say that humanity is no more or less special than any other form of life in this universe. That's very different than saying that there is nothing above us which implies that we are better than anything else and are the pinnacle of all life. We're not. In fact I would go so far as to say that we haven't even achieved civilization yet.

 

[Equus14]

I think it's pretty conceited of mankind to think that there is nothing else above him. When a life is ended what happens to that spark that was there? Why can't man create that "spark?"

Healthy agnostocism would be my game, I guess, but for every argument for there's an equal against, and vice versa.

Life's too short to waste on such battles.

As to what happens to that 'spark' when a life has ended. It dies. There is no such thing as the soul as a seperate entity from the mind which is created by the brain organ. When the brain dies so does who you are. There is nothing in which to contain who you are when the brain is dead. How do we know this? Because who you are is nothing more than the sum of your memories and your thoughts and feelings about your memories. The neuronal matrixes in your brain is created by experience and it's all woven together by a vast network of associations. This creates your personality. Brain damage changes that stored information and those associations and that changes your personality. Ask anyone who has known people who have had varying degrees of stroke or other brain trauma. They often are different people afterwards. How can who you are as a person survive the death of the body when brain damage can change who you are as a person?

There is only one logical conclusion. The Soul as religion likes to view it doesn't exist.

 

[eddyabs]

I think that we are here as part of an evolutionary process, as a part of the universe. Everything that we can dream or imagine is possible as we, as part of the universe, have these visions through being a part of 'it'.

God in my eyes is in what I said above. Just lie back on a clear night, far away from light pollution, and see the wonder of it all. The feeling that ensues I often feel is as close to the idea of a God that I am ever going to get....

I believe in the soul, but only from personal experience, and that's another story.

So in answer to the question, yes, I believe in a God, but a God that I see and relate to in my own way.

As for organised religion....it's not for me.

 

[the_reverend]

Again I can refute by asking if there is no need for He Himself to be created, why is there a need for the universe itself to be created? If there is no need for beginnings or endings, why did a god have to create the universe? Why could it not have just been in existence all on it's own?

well, it's pretty generally accepted that the universe DID have a beginning. whether you want to frame it as the Big Bang or "let there be light" (kind of the same thing, if you ask me), there was a starting moment. the beginning of linear time. read my post again. God exists OUTSIDE of space and time, so requires no beginning since there is no linear time. but since the universe DOES take place in linear time, there are beginnings and endings, at least from our perspective. as Einstein postulated, if you could view all of time from an outside perspective (as God can), then it would all present itself as one complete work. now, one doesn't have to believe in God to believe that the universe came into being. i mean, we're here, so that much is obvious. but for those of us who DO believe He exists and that He created the whole shebang, it's not that much of a conundrum as to who or what created God. He simply always was and always will be, the Source from which all things spring and eventually all return to. it requires a little non linear thinking to consider what lies beyond our own universe, but i've always been fond of trippy shit like that.

Billions of years is plenty of time. You can throw various bacteria under a microscope and watch it evolve in a period of hours. And humans could have evolved into any number of other things based upon the environment it happened in. It's a bad to assume as we currently exist is the best model. Perhaps if there were no dinosaurs, we'd look completely different. Less sun, more sun, no Pangea, a longer period of Pangea. Nothing "lined-up just right". How we arrived here could've happened in so many other ways and different periods of time and resulted in many other possibilities. You think too highly of humans.

well, i AM one, so i have a little bias. but i wasn't just talking about humans. go back and read what i said all the way through. the complexity and diversity of life, especially the varying levels of intelligent life on this planet are amazing. put a few bacteria on any other planet and see if they can evolve, let alone evolve into the variety of species or into intelligent beings. yes, of course, if the circumstances of our planet were different, we would've evolved differently or not come into being at all. but the CONDITIONS on this planet are in that Goldilocks zone of being "just right" to support the growth and development of life in multiple forms, eventually developing into highly intelligent forms like ourselves. no other planet in our solar system can do that. the number of planets that could potentially do it in our galaxy is relatively few, and that potential is not a promise. it's completely miraculous that life formed, thrived, evolved and adapted on this world. i don't believe in "instant" miracles. i'm much fonder of the ones that take a lot of time. far more fascinating. :biggrin1:

On a theistic basis theists are generally ignorant, fearful, small people who require a god fantasy to make them feel special, and threats from their non-existent god to behave themselves. They don't deserve pity they deserve a psychotherapist to help them deal with their fear of the finality of death, find some real self-esteem that doesn't hinge upon anything external from themselves, and to be deprogrammed from the religious delusions that they have embraced. It doesn't matter if you've come to this on your own. It is an unfortunate leftover from the evolution of our species that it still has a propensity toward delusional thinking. It's a trait that no longer serves its purpose. All evolutionary traits are those things that help a species to survive. Religion was once a primitive form of government with a non-existent god figure as a law giver. However now that we have REAL government of the people, by the people, and for the people, it's no longer useful. In fact it gets in the way. So this trait is one that is currently killing us. We either evolve beyond it or it will destroy us. I'm betting it will be the latter rather than the former.

well, good to know we can have a rational debate on the subject withour your prejudices getting in the way.

i am none of the things you describe religious people as being. all of my friends of various faiths and denominations are not like that either. i have no fear of death or dying. i don't need God to know right from wrong. these were things that were formed in me before i discovered my faith. hell, believing in God was almost the fulfillment of all of that, not the cause. i know i'm a unique case because a lot of people were raised in their religion, but every one of my friends who believes in God is a highly intelligent and critically thinking person who wrestles with doubt and uncertainty to reevaluate and reenforce their faith. God isn't a delusion or a neurosis for us. He's just what we've discovered as a personal truth. i'm not insisting that you have to believe in God. hell, as i've pointed out before, i have almost as many atheist friends as i do religious. and we get along fine because we respect each other and listen to what everyone else has to say instead of coming up with wildly inaccurate prejudices about each other based on our belief or lack thereof in God.

i'd say from the sound of it you've just been unfortunate in your encounters with religious people. honestly, the world's a more interesting place than that.

Religions are control devices. Anyone who is not suseptable to being controlled in that manner is part of the 'out group'. Religions always demonize the 'out group'. I'm the epitome of an 'out group' individual. It can be argued that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion.

well, i'm sure there are plenty of Buddhists who'd argue with you on that...or rather they'd simply smile and pass you on by since their truth is not dependent on your belief in it. :biggrin1: i dig Buddhism...it's so cool.

religions are NOT control devices and they don't ALWAYS demonize the "out" group. hell, they often ARE demonized as the "out" group. this is the danger of speaking in generalizations. anything can be used as a control device, particularly institutions. that's as true of religion as it is of government, even that "government of, by, for the people" that you were espousing earlier. you think democracies can't be controlled, manipulated, exploited the same way religions have been? read any current newspaper for plenty of examples of both. does that mean democracy is inherently bad or a control device? no, of course not. neither is religion, in and of itself. institutionalize any belief system, any religion, philosophy or ideology and watch how quickly it's used to manipulate and control people. the problem is not religion, it's what's done TO religion and what those in power use religion FOR.

As to what happens to that 'spark' when a life has ended. It dies. There is no such thing as the soul as a seperate entity from the mind which is created by the brain organ. When the brain dies so does who you are. There is nothing in which to contain who you are when the brain is dead. How do we know this? Because who you are is nothing more than the sum of your memories and your thoughts and feelings about your memories. The neuronal matrixes in your brain is created by experience and it's all woven together by a vast network of associations. This creates your personality. Brain damage changes that stored information and those associations and that changes your personality. Ask anyone who has known people who have had varying degrees of stroke or other brain trauma. They often are different people afterwards. How can who you are as a person survive the death of the body when brain damage can change who you are as a person?

There is only one logical conclusion. The Soul as religion likes to view it doesn't exist.

so because a person's personality can change based on an injury or traumatic experience...or, hell, just from going to college and being exposed to new people and places...that means that there's no soul? that's your "one logical conclusion"? our personalities are a combination of our genetic heritage and cultural conditioning via upbringing. they're little more than suits that we wear. our souls, our essential selves, our divine spark are something beyond that...eternal fragments of the Source, of God.

i'd say there are plenty of "logical" conclusions to be made about the soul and about behavioral conditioning and neurochemistry in relationship to personalities. saying the one you believe is the "only one" as if you'd just completed some kind of geometric proof comes off as a bit arrogant and closed minded.

As for organised religion....it's not for me.

i think this is an important distinction to be made. i'm by no means a fan of organized or institutionalized religion, as i've pointed out several times. i think for SOME people, it's an important component of their spirituality. but too often it becomes a crutch, or something that's done out of social habit than genuine faith. but i'm not much of a fan of institutions in general. my parents may not have raised me as a Christian (at least not in name), but they did raise me to be a good little anarchist.

 

[KagomJack]

I believe in my own version of God, honestly. But nonetheless I do.

 

[Equus14]

well, good to know we can have a rational debate on the subject withour your prejudices getting in the way.

I have very valid reasons for feeling the way I do about religion and the actions of theists.

i am none of the things you describe religious people as being. all of my friends of various faiths and denominations are not like that either. i have no fear of death or dying. i don't need God to know right from wrong. these were things that were formed in me before i discovered my faith. hell, believing in God was almost the fulfillment of all of that, not the cause.

Then perhaps I should limit my extreme dislike for religion and theists to mostly the Abrahamic religions. Judhism, Christianity, and Islam. Granted anyone can make ANYTHING their god if they choose to view it that way. So my vehemence is directed towards the majority of theists not those who have their own personal 'feel good' god that mind their own business and let others live their lives as they see fit. That in itself is NOT an Abrahamic god.

i know i'm a unique case because a lot of people were raised in their religion, but every one of my friends who believes in God is a highly intelligent and critically thinking person who wrestles with doubt and uncertainty to reevaluate and reenforce their faith.

If you have a preconcieved notion that your god exists and have a desire to maintain it at all, YOU WILL, in spite of your doubts. Only when you view the universe as it stands with no other 'hidden meanings' behind things will you see that it's just as it seems. The human mind can find meaning behind ANYTHING put before it, and if a part of you wants to find that meaning you will. That doesn't mean that the meaning is anything more than your own creation.

God isn't a delusion or a neurosis for us.

That would be silly if you thought that it was. People who are truly delusional do not know they are and will deny it. It's the nature of delusion. You could just as easily say that I'm delusional, and of course I would deny it, however, I do not believe anything that I can't prove to be true and if someone can show me different I'm willing to change my mind about those things. According to dictionary.com
Delusional: "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness"

Most religious people fit that description. There are some who are willing to change their beliefs and those that do usually end up with some form of Pantheistic or Deistic type god if they choose to remain a theist at all.

He's just what we've discovered as a personal truth.i'm not insisting that you have to believe in God. hell, as i've pointed out before, i have almost as many atheist friends as i do religious. and we get along fine because we respect each other and listen to what everyone else has to say instead of coming up with wildly inaccurate prejudices about each other based on our belief or lack thereof in God.

I'm happy for you if that makes you happy. You're part of a small minority though.

i'd say from the sound of it you've just been unfortunate in your encounters with religious people. honestly, the world's a more interesting place than that.

"unfortunate" is putting it mildly.

well, i'm sure there are plenty of Buddhists who'd argue with you on that...or rather they'd simply smile and pass you on by since their truth is not dependent on your belief in it. :biggrin1: i dig Buddhism...it's so cool.

Their passing me by would not invalidate what I would have to say. Only that they do not wish to hear it. That which is 'True' is important to me and only what is 'factual' is 'true' and only those things that have heaps of evidence for it are 'factual'. There is no valid evidence for reincarnation.

religions are NOT control devices and they don't ALWAYS demonize the "out" group.

Correction. MOST, and most especially Abrahamic religions, ARE control devices. They are based on falsehoods that can be proven to be untrue. They control those people who are members of those religions to one extent or another. That is their current purpose.

hell, they often ARE demonized as the "out" group.

YES, the 'out group' of OTHER religions. Thank you for proving my point.

this is the danger of speaking in generalizations. anything can be used as a control device, particularly institutions. that's as true of religion as it is of government, even that "government of, by, for the people" that you were espousing earlier. you think democracies can't be controlled, manipulated, exploited the same way religions have been? read any current newspaper for plenty of examples of both. does that mean democracy is inherently bad or a control device? no, of course not. neither is religion, in and of itself. institutionalize any belief system, any religion, philosophy or ideology and watch how quickly it's used to manipulate and control people. the problem is not religion, it's what's done TO religion and what those in power use religion FOR.

Most Governments and Most Religions (most especially Abrahamic religions) have several very important things in common.

They are both institutions. Religion without the institution is 'individualized spirituality' and I'm not talking about that.
They both need PEOPLE to make those institutions function.
They both contain a hierarchy.
and most importantly
They both contain an element of Authoritarianism and Dogma.

It is what form and to what extent that Authoritarianism and Dogmic beliefs take that make them have verying degrees of "badness".

so because a person's personality can change based on an injury or traumatic experience...or, hell, just from going to college and being exposed to new people and places...that means that there's no soul? that's your "one logical conclusion"? our personalities are a combination of our genetic heritage and cultural conditioning via upbringing."

Our genes are part of what makes us who we are that is true and that has been shown to be true scientifically and of course cultural conditioning as well since it is part of our experience. I do not discount that.

they're little more than suits that we wear.

NO that IS who we are. Not just a suit. And it's all the more amazing that this is true. Not less amazing because we have no soul that exists apart from the mind being generated by our brains. That's what brains do. The Brain cannot perceive it's own functioning. This creates the illusion of duality. It is that illusion that has created this notion of a soul that is seperate. It isn't.

our souls, our essential selves, our divine spark are something beyond that...eternal fragments of the Source, of God.

You've left reality here and gone beyond Logic, reason, and rationaltiy. The only part of you that will exist after your death is the chemical elements your body is made from. Who you are will no longer exist.

i'd say there are plenty of "logical" conclusions to be made about the soul and about behavioral conditioning and neurochemistry in relationship to personalities. saying the one you believe is the "only one" as if you'd just completed some kind of geometric proof comes off as a bit arrogant and closed minded.

If you can prove that your seperate soul exists I'd like to see the evidence and I'll change my mind accordingly. Till then, I'm not arrogant and close minded. I'm simply keeping my beliefs founded in reality.

 

[the_reverend]

I have very valid reasons for feeling the way I do about religion and the actions of theists.

right, your experiences which have formed these prejudices against all religion and anyone who believes in God, regardless of if they actually fit your narrow definition or not. doesn't make them true.

Then perhaps I should limit my extreme dislike for religion and theists to mostly the Abrahamic religions. Judhism, Christianity, and Islam.

except that NOT all people who believe in God or the spiritual realm are like that and are not deserving of your vehemence. save the venom for the actual bastards in the world, whatever religious or political flag they fly. but don't paint all of us with the same wide brush. it's neither logical nor factual, two things you claim to revere so greatly.

If you have a preconcieved notion that your god exists and have a desire to maintain it at all, YOU WILL, in spite of your doubts. Only when you view the universe as it stands with no other 'hidden meanings' behind things will you see that it's just as it seems. The human mind can find meaning behind ANYTHING put before it, and if a part of you wants to find that meaning you will. That doesn't mean that the meaning is anything more than your own creation.

if i encounter doubts about my faith or my beliefs, then it means i've encountered something that appears contradictory to either. so i study it, i meditate on it, i go back and forth in my head, i argue it out with friends until i've resolved it, either by realizing it's NOT contradictory or by altering my belief structure to accomodate the new information. when I view the universe as it stands, i do see the hidden meanings in things, events, people, symbols. your stating they're NOT there doesn't automatically negate their presence or significance. even if the meaning is of my own creation, i believe that that creative spirit or insight or whatever you want to call it is a gift from God. you are right that it's just as it seems, though. reality is an illusion, based in perception. how you perceive a thing to be is how it seems is how it is. but to say there is no greater truth or meaning behind it? no, sorry, i can't get behind that.

You could just as easily say that I'm delusional, and of course I would deny it, however, I do not believe anything that I can't prove to be true and if someone can show me different I'm willing to change my mind about those things. According to dictionary.com
Delusional: "A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness"

show me invalidating evidence that my faith is incorrect. disprove God. disprove my beliefs in love, forgiveness, compassion and understanding. disprove passion and creativity. disprove that there is anything beyond this life. the difference is i'm NOT calling you delusional. you're free to believe what you want. don't believe in God? i'm not saying you have to. don't believe in an afterlife? if you think this is all there is, i don't disrespect that. you, on the other hand, continually call any of us who DO believe in God delusional, ignorant, hateful and insist that we must see things YOUR way with talk of logic and evidence, yet you provide none.

I'm happy for you if that makes you happy. You're part of a small minority though.

the thing is, i'm not. WE'RE not. it's the bigots and the terrorists of all creeds and faiths who are the, sadly, vocal minority. the rest of us get along just fine.

"unfortunate" is putting it mildly.

and i fully believe that. and i'm sorry for whatever it is you had to go through. believe me, i'm from small town Texas...i know exactly what kind of intolerance and bigotry religion can be used to excuse, even passively and politely. but what i'm asking you to do is consider the FACT (and it is a fact) that we're not all like that. hell, i know for a fact not all atheists are like some of the obnoxious assholes i've had to deal with in my life. it would be easy to paint all of you with that brush and dismiss anyone who ever claimed they were an atheist. but i look BEYOND those experiences to the people i've met, talked with, laughed with, fought with who were genuinely good and intelligent people. it would be a grave disservice for me to hold them accountable the handful of others who weren't as cool. like i said before, there are bastards among ALL groups of people. it doesn't mean you shouldn't be open to the ones who aren't.

Their passing me by would not invalidate what I would have to say. Only that they do not wish to hear it. That which is 'True' is important to me and only what is 'factual' is 'true' and only those things that have heaps of evidence for it are 'factual'. There is no valid evidence for reincarnation.

there's no valid evidence against it either. there's a famous story about Carl Sagan meeting the Dalai Lama. Sagan asked him what he would do if science were able to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that there was no such thing as reincarnation or even nirvana. the Dalai Lama thought about it and said that he would inform his followers to stop believing in those things, and urge all Buddhists to do so as well. Sagan was stunned, after all the years of other religious people holding steadfastly to their faith and beliefs. He smiled to himself, believing that he'd won the argument without even trying. Then the Dalai Lama leaned in and said, "So, tell me...how would you go about proving that?" THAT'S how cool Buddhists are. it's not that they'd ignore you or just pass you by, but they have no NEED to fight. they believe what they believe and if you don't, they'll listen and smile and let you believe that as well.

but i believe there ARE truths beyond mere facts. can you prove them? no, not scientifically. but, to me, that doesn't make them any less true. there are things you can observe, and things you can't. prove you love your parents. prove that you're a reggae fan. prove that you poured your heart into a painting or a poem. you can observe phenomena related to those things, but you can't prove any of them to be absolutely true based on facts and observable data. you can't quantify love or passion. those are spiritual matters...but does that make them any less true? i don't think so.

 

[the_reverend]

Correction. MOST, and most especially Abrahamic religions, ARE control devices. They are based on falsehoods that can be proven to be untrue.

once again, you say that they can be proven untrue...so do so. oh, what, you can disprove Adam and Eve or Noah? big whoop. those aren't exactly essential matters of faith. religion in and of itself is not a "control device." it can and has been used for that purpose by the corrupt and the greedy, certainly. i'm not denying that. but that's not nor has it ever been its purpose or its aim. hell, Jesus preached AGAINST just that. once again, you're imposing your outside prejudices based on limited experiences as a broad generalization on ALL religion. faith itself does not control people because we still have and always will have free will. a church or mosque or temple can tell you what to do or believe, but it's your CHOICE whether or not you do or believe it. if you couldn't there wouldn't be so many sects and denominations. every one of those variations in every faith represents somebody who said "no, i disagree...i believe this instead." so if religion is meant for the sole purpose of controlling people, it's been doing a pretty piss poor job of it for the last few thousand years.

YES, the 'out group' of OTHER religions. Thank you for proving my point.

or the out group among militant bigoted atheists, or governments that don't tolerate their religion and persecute them merely for believing and practicing their faith. and that IS a fact.

and most importantly
They both contain an element of Authoritarianism and Dogma.

no, not necessarily. again, you continue to speak in generalizations as if they were facts. not all governments or religions are dependent upon authoritarianism or dogma. they can easily descend into that by becoming TOO institutionalized and thus riddled with corruption and hypocrisy, but that doesn't make the IDEAS behind them at fault, merely the bastards in charge. we're flawed creatures. we can fuck up anything we get our hands on, no matter how beautiful, wise or true. that does not make religion inherently bad, any more than it makes government inherently bad. it just means that in both arenas, in ALL arenas, we need to choose to think and act for ourselves and not let other people do it for us. faith does not equate willful ignorance and surrendering of our free will, no matter what you might like to believe otherwise.

NO that IS who we are. Not just a suit. And it's all the more amazing that this is true. Not less amazing because we have no soul that exists apart from the mind being generated by our brains.

if that were true, then our personalities would never change. they would be essential fundamental things that were unalterable. the FACT that they are so dependent upon our experiences and our perceptions, the FACT that we can change them anytime we want to, is proof to me that they are fleeting things. we get married to them and are afraid to change at times, which causes stagnation in our lives, but that's the illusion...that our personalities define us, that we are incapable of being anything else.

and i never said the soul was separate. i think it's absolutely integral to our beings. our holistic selves, body, mind and spirit. i've also always been fond of the quote (and may have cited it in here before), "the soul does not exist within the body, the body exists within the soul."

You've left reality here and gone beyond Logic, reason, and rationaltiy. The only part of you that will exist after your death is the chemical elements your body is made from. Who you are will no longer exist.

because i believe there is MORE than just logic, reason, rationality and even reality. there IS something beyond all of this. and part of that is my soul. whether that returns to God, the Source, after i die or whether i reenter the game in another suit and play out another life, i can't say. i have ideas and beliefs, but no firm knowledge. but i believe in the soul, in the eternal essential spark that is me and is God and that connects me to everything and everyone else. my body may rot and decompose and become part of the life cycle of the Earth again (well, i plan on being cremated, so maybe not quite like that...), but i believe in my soul and that eternal fundamental part of me that goes on. you don't have to. and what difference does it make to you whether i do or not?

to quote a great philosopher, "Luminous beings are we...not this crude matter." okay, so it was Yoda, it doesn't make it any less awesome. :biggrin1:

If you can prove that your seperate soul exists I'd like to see the evidence and I'll change my mind accordingly. Till then, I'm not arrogant and close minded. I'm simply keeping my beliefs founded in reality.

and insisting that anyone who believes differently must therefore be delusional and ignorant. no, not closed minded at all.

i don't NEED to prove that my soul exists (once again, not separate). i don't NEED to show you evidence. show me evidence it doesn't and maybe i'll consider not believing in it. i'm not saying you have to believe what i believe. i'm just saying there are other points of view to consider and you don't have to be so belligerent and closed off towards those whose beliefs and opinions differ.

God bless. (sorry, i couldn't resist...:biggrin1

 

[Drifterwood]

My point is that when it comes to universal truth, the crown jewels of empircism, science that is, cannot claim to be anything more than "extremely useful".

So we agree that science is useful.

What though, is the purpose of godness?

Not for me and many the constructed religions of man.

Not "holy" scriptures of varying authenticity.

Nor even a focus for the spiritual journey of life.

Godness seems to me to be a humanly conceived abstract without empirical foundation. I am not saying that that is a bad thing, simply though that it is what it is.

 

[KagomJack]

I'd like to add I believe God is a woman.

I get hit with her menstrual cycle daily...*duck*

 

[the_reverend]

I'd like to add I believe God is a woman.

I get hit with her menstrual cycle daily...*duck*

a woman with a warped sense of humor. s'all good...i like that in a girl.

 

[Equus14]

right, your experiences which have formed these prejudices against all religion and anyone who believes in God, regardless of if they actually fit your narrow definition or not. doesn't make them true.

It's not just against all religion, but against irrationality and unreason. I am equally against other forms of authoritarianism. Religion is just one form. One must create limits for oneself. I tolerate those religions that tolerate the rest of us. Those religions and people who don't I respond in the same manner as they treat others. After all, I'm only treating them as they apparently wish to be treated. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" works both ways.

except that NOT all people who believe in God or the spiritual realm are like that and are not deserving of.......with the same wide brush. it's neither logical nor factual, two things you claim to revere so greatly.

The problem with the moderate versions of the Abrahamic religions is that in spite of being more of a 'feel good' kind of religion that minds its own business and leaves me to mind my own. The majority of them do virtually NOTHING to stop the more radical versions of running over what they will. Moderate religions create a harbor for their radical versions. If moderate Christianity stood up and collectively told 'conservative' radiacal Christianity to 'SIT DOWN and Shut Up!' I would have less of a problem with moderate Christianity, but they do not do that and will not.

reality is an illusion, based in perception. how you perceive a thing to be is how it seems is how it is. but to say there is no greater truth or meaning behind it? no, sorry, i can't get behind that.

This is where so many religious/spiritual people go wrong. No reality is not an illusion. Reality is what is there in spite of your perceptions. How you perceive a thing is not always what is real. That's why there are people who live in their own little world. That's called mental illness. Some people percieve that they are Napoleon and that Harry Potter is a real person that doesn't mean they are and no amount of perception is going to make them true. Reality is static. It's a set thing. If it weren't there is no way anyone could truly relate to anyone else and have any kind of cohesive conversation. We are all experiencing the reality that is there through our senses, and that reality would be there even if we did not exist. Perception is an interpretation of what our senses tell us and perceptions can be skewed simply because it is a matter of interpretation. That's why it's so important that there is mounds of evidence and agreement on what that evidence is telling us before something is considered a fact within science. Agreement over perception with no valid evidence is just what religion does, and that's not the same thing.

show me invalidating evidence that my faith is incorrect. disprove God.

Just because I can't disprove god doesn't mean that if one should exist it is YOURS. It could just as easily be the god of some other religion or the god of no human religion. Or even multiple gods. You are making the assertion that god exists. It's up to you to prove that it does. Otherwise you may as well be saying that garden gnomes exist.

disprove my beliefs in love, forgiveness, compassion and understanding. disprove passion and creativity.

Why bother? Those are human traits they certainly exist and I don't dispute that. It's your suppositions of the meanings behind them that I disagree with. They're nothing more than what they seem on the surface.

disprove that there is anything beyond this life.

A lack of evidence for it says that there isn't an afterlife. There is no reason to disprove the existence of invisible gnomes in my garden because there is no reason to believe that they exist due to a lack of evidence. Same thing with the 'afterlife'.

the difference is i'm NOT calling you delusional. you're free to believe what you want. don't believe in God? i'm not saying you have to. don't believe in an afterlife? if you think this is all there is, i don't disrespect that. you, on the other hand, continually call any of us who DO believe in God delusional, ignorant, hateful and insist that we must see things YOUR way with talk of logic and evidence, yet you provide none.

I'm not saying that you have to see things MY way. I'm saying that if you leave reality based on evidence and live your perceptions with no evidence you're leaving yourself open to believe ANYTHING your perceptions tell you. That leads to Delusional thinking. There is only one reality, and that's the one we are all sharing. If you could plainly see that there is no invisible garden gnomes in people's gardens because of a total lack of evidence and I came along and told you that they do exist but provide no evidence that it is true apart from my perceptions I shouldn't be surprised to find people calling me delusional. It's the exact same thing with religion. It's not enough that you couldn't care less what I believe. I DO care what others believe for the simple fact that when so many other people believe what is not true, it effects us all. Look at ALL the horrible things that are being done in the name of religion. THAT is what believing things with no evidence creates.

the thing is, i'm not. WE'RE not. it's the bigots and the terrorists of all creeds and faiths who are the, sadly, vocal minority. the rest of us get along just fine.

Religion creates conflict. People instinctively understand there can only be one Truth and in spite of your attitude toward others, which I admit is kinder than some, is still part of that collective unreason which the more unkinder elements feed off of.

and i fully believe that. and i'm sorry for whatever it is you had to go through. believe me, i'm from small town Texas...i know exactly what kind of intolerance and bigotry religion can be used to excuse, even passively and politely. but what i'm asking you to do is consider the FACT (and it is a fact) that we're not all like that.

I know you're not all like that, but I've explained why I treat all religious people the same way.

hell, i know for a fact not all atheists are like some of the obnoxious assholes i've had to deal with in my life. it .......who weren't as cool. like i said before, there are bastards among ALL groups of people. it doesn't mean you shouldn't be open to the ones who aren't.

There is a difference between how I treat religious people as PEOPLE and how I treat them as 'Religious' people. Everyone deserves respect as people, beliefs that are collectively negatively effecting others that are unreasonable and irrational deserve derision and ridicule.

there's no valid evidence against it either. there's a famous story about Carl Sagan meeting the Dalai Lama. Sagan .......proving that?" THAT'S how cool Buddhists are. it's not that they'd ignore you or just pass you by, but they have no NEED to fight. they believe what they believe and if you don't, they'll listen and smile and let you believe that as well.

Religious suppositions about the afterlife and that which doesn't exist look very much alike.
They are both unprovable.
They are both not disprovable.
It is the lack of evidence that makes then not worth believing.

but i believe there ARE truths beyond mere facts. can you prove them? no, not scientifically. but, to me, that doesn't make them any less true.

Living by perception alone is a mistake. Radial Islam for example lives by perception alone to. Are they right in their 'truths' that are beyond mere fact to?

there are things you can observe, and things you can't. prove you love your parents.

I do every day in what I do for them without question. That is the evidence.

prove that you're a reggae fan..... but you can't prove any of them to be absolutely true based on facts and observable data. you can't quantify love or passion. those are spiritual matters...but does that make them any less true? i don't think so.

mounds of observed phenomena related to those things IS EVIDENCE. With enough evidence for a particular thing it can create an almost near certainty which may as well mean fact. Where is your evidence for your spiritual beliefs? Where is your evidence that the afterlife exists? Where is your evidence that the god that you claim exists is YOURS as oppose to someone else's? Where is your evidence that your perceptions are reality with no evidence?

 

[p542]

Yes......God is very real.